We have learnt quite a lot about Windows 7 this week, and one of the things was that Windows 7 would not get a new kernel. The call for a new kernel has been made a few times on the internet, but anyone with a bit more insight into Windows' kernel knows that there is absolutely no need to write a new kernel for Windows - the problems with Windows lie in userland, not kernelland. While the authenticity of the Shipping Seven blog is not undisputed, the blogger makes some very excellent points regarding the kernel matter.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-05-18
It seems that Windows bashing is quite popular here and sadly just for the sake of it.
I, too, haven't had XP BSOD on me, although I take care of about 10-15 systems (those at work, and some of a few friends and family) except a couple of times when dealing with faulty hardware.
To the people that bash Windows: please tell me of an OS as good as Windows, with as many mature applications as Windows (goodbye Linux) and which runs on 300$ hardware (goodbye Mac OS X).
I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm saying it has its merits but you guys fail to see them out of some reason that only you can understand.
RE[5]: Comment by FunkyELF
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-09-06
Member since:2007-01-18
I haven't seen a blue screen of death in many many years. So I'm with everybody else on this one. Windows is a whole lot better than it use to be.
To me not using Microsoft products is more of a political/religious thing. I just simply don't like the company or the way it conducts business.
Linux, Unix, BSD, and the MacOS X are all equal to Windows IMO. I'd say the Windows platform wins in application support, but that doesn't, by itself, make it a good OS or platform. Just the most widely used and supported.
Macs are damn expensive, but then again Windows Vista is, imo, way overpriced too. I like Apple, but I truly believe given the opportunity they would be just as "evil" as Microsoft.
People can say what they want, but at the end of the day the majority of people are still going to be using Windows. Linux might be making inroads in the server and desktop market, but it'll probably be awhile before they "take over". On the plus side it's highly unlikely that the Mac platform will ever become the dominate platform which I think suites Steve Jobs.
Member since:2006-12-27
Im gonna challenge you on that one. I would argue that Linux has near that number of mature apps that Windows does. I would suggest that like many you except that they don't exist because they don't share a name with what you are presently used too. Also Windows Vista is not capable of running (properly) on 300 dollar hardware.
For the record this is not Windows bashing. I have no issues with Windows or the people who use it.
Member since:
2006-03-18
Wow. But sorry, I am telling the truth. I had a Windows 2000 system that BSOD'd a couple times on me, I believe due to hardware issues, though I am not sure, but I am not lying about XP - I remember at most one BSOD with XP, though I might be misremembering that one.
More recently I have a work laptop with XP I used for two years - never BSOD'd. I have a work desktop with XP, 3+ years old, never BSOD'd. I have another work laptop I've been using for 6 months with XP - never BSOD'd. I have a Vista laptop I've been using for 1.5 years, never BSOD'd. I have a Vista desktop I've been using for over a year, never BSOD'd.
But then again I never get infected by viruses or malware, a point which credulous cretins such as yourself also refuse to believe, but I think malware and viruses will significantly increase your chances of BSODing.